The Foreign Service Journal, December 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | DECEMBER 2015 9 LETTERS Shades of Decisions Ted Strickler’s impressive cover story article in the October FSJ (“Working with the U.S. Military—10 Things the Foreign Service Needs to Know”) should be required reading for everyone who works at the Department of State. His first point alone (“The Basics”) provides essential information that I’ve never seen presented in such a concise, useful manner. Based on my own, more limited experience, I offer two other observations that might be helpful to FSOs working with our military. The first is that military service members embrace and promote a culture of ceremony, recognition and reaffirmation that leads to a sense of belonging, celebrates teamwork and maintains continuity. A lot of FSOs consider this kind of thing hokey and trite. I know I did for a long time. I was wrong. Military slogans and ceremonies do exactly what they are supposed to do, which is build esprit de corps and recognize individual contributions to the group. Public events to confer promotions and medals demonstrate commitment to recognizing achievement, while change- of-command ceremonies reinforce hierarchy and continuity. Retirement ceremonies not only recognize indi- viduals’ contributions, but are a collec- tive exercise in reviewing institutional progress. FSOs who are uncomfortable with these rites and rituals (as I often was) are missing the point and should, as Ted mentions, use their cross-cultural skills to learn to appreciate and accept their value. The second point I would underscore is that the military wants to make decisions and do things, while the Foreign Service is more deliberative. Strickler touches on this in his second point, but I would add that the military’s devotion to “planning”—both in terms of allocation of resources and as a guiding principle— means that they sometimes create the momentum to do what they have planned. This is where FSOs’ “deliberative” nature can be useful. Just because someone planned something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, or that the plan should be executed. FSOs can sometimes spot weaknesses in a plan—or whole plans that should be shelved—and mitigate the negative repercussions acting on it might have had. I offer a simplistic analogy: Paint- ers you called to give you a quote show up on a rainy day ready to paint your house. They are all set to start, with the equipment and vats of neon-green paint unloaded in the driveway. You, however, live there and know that neon green will probably not go over well with the neigh- bors, so you suggest another shade. And you propose waiting for better weather. David Ballard FSO, retired Reston, Virginia A Better Way to Advance World Food Security Michael McClellan’s October article, “A Closer Look at Advancing World Food Security,” reflects a misguided belief that markets, technology and international trade hinder global food security. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The world produces more food now per capita than at any time in history, thanks to new technologies like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Markets, when allowed to work, incentivize farmers to produce more efficiently and provide tremendous variety to increasingly wealthy and urban consumers. Similarly, international trade is critical to balancing out regional swings in production and price spikes, and represents a safety net against famine. As for McClellan’s portrayal of U.S. agriculture, farm wealth is at record levels and our farmers are better stewards of the land than ever. This is all happening while U.S. farms—the vast majority of which are family-owned— help to feed a planet whose population is expected to grow to more than 9 billion. And speaking as a Foreign Service agricultural officer who has served in some of the same countries as McClellan, I am shocked that he advocates increased use of draft animals or would otherwise condemn farmers to traditional agriculture. Reading the article, I see more clearly the wisdom of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which established a corps of career FSOs who deal exclusively with agricul- ture, including food security. The Foreign Agricultural Service is the eyes, ears and voice of U.S. agriculture overseas. Monitoring global food production and trade and advancing the interest of U.S. agriculture are tasks best left to an agency purpose-built for the task. Paul Spencer FAS FSO Washington, D.C. “Generalist” Has to Go Cheers to Ambassador Ronald Neumann (“A Report from the American Academy of Diplomacy,” July-August Journal ) for highlighting the insidious creep of the term “Foreign Service gener-